MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Hi

In a couple of weeks, when I get my tax returns, I'm gonna buy a new PC. I'll probably order it from komplett.no, a Norwegian web site, which gives me the option to choose parts, and then they'll put it together. This is what I'm considering, and I'd like some opinions about it. What I'm looking for, is general advice, and if some components have issues you know about, please tell.

If you think I should replace a part with something more expensive, that's ok. I'm not going anywhere this vacation, which means I can afford to spend quite a lot on this. And since I'm spending a lot, I need to know that I'm getting a good rig.

Please note that the parts I don't need advice about, are already decided and are unlikely to be subject to change. This has to do with limited selections for certain components at the mentioned web shop, and it's obvious what I have to choose. But in case you wonder, or need know to consider how well it all will work together, these are the main ones:

PSU: Corsair AX 850W PSU ATX 12V V2.31, 80 Plus Gold

Case / Mid tower: Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced

"Old" components to be used:

HDD: doesn't matter which I get in this configuration, I will replace it with 2x 2TB, which I already own. Therefore, I'll probably go for the cheapest one in the configuration options.

Monitor: will use my Philips 220s2 22". Will consider to buy a 3D later, time will show.

GPU. I want one that lasts for a while. I'm thinking of the first one of these 2 cards, but should I go for the second instead? The price difference is just below $100, but I'm willing to pay that if it's worth it. Btw, the second card is the "double dissipation edition".

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Go for OCZ Vertex 4 for SSD, and paying those 100$ more for Graphics card is worth it if you really want longevity.

8 cores doesnt make difference currently because no games can properly utilize anything more than 2 cores (4 for the newer games). So I'd say go for some good 4core CPU. In this case you'd better give up on AMD and buy i5 2.5k because AMD CPU's just arent competing with intel in performance properly anymore.

EDIT: Regarding RAM, 32gb is an overkill lol. Especially since those motherboards are only Dual channel, they wouldnt utilize that amount of memory properly. Go for 16gb. (I would say go for 8gb of fast RAM instead of mass amounts of ram because generally smaller amounts of faster ram results in better performance than lots of it)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Sorry in advance for my english,

Ok for me i will help you on 2 thing. Never buy gigabyte, i had ton of problem with them, i may have been unlucky but after buying 2 pc both with gigabyte motherboad and its turned bad so i guess go for the other choice.

Asus and Msi are my 2 choice for Motherboard now,

but for the case please dont use the Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced i had the sameone 2 week ago and i had to change it because the airflow was bad and you have no control over ur fan speed,You could buy cable with speed controler but why when u could just get a better casing,

my cpu even with a corsair water cooling was going over 77c and that way to hot.

i replaced it with a Nine hundred two from antec and since then i never passed the 35c and my room is way cooler then before lol

~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by sk8chalif

Sorry in advance for my english,

Ok for me i will help you on 2 thing. Never buy gigabyte, i had ton of problem with them, i may have been unlucky but after buying 2 pc both with gigabyte motherboad and its turned bad so i guess go for the other choice.

Asus and Msi are my 2 choice for Motherboard now,

but for the case please dont use the Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced i had the sameone 2 week ago and i had to change it because the airflow was bad and you have no control over ur fan speed,You could buy cable with speed controler but why when u could just get a better casing,

my cpu even with a corsair water cooling was going over 77c and that way to hot.

i replaced it with a Nine hundred two from antec and since then i never passed the 35c and my room is way cooler then before lol

First, your English is just fine :)

I was kinda tilting towards MSI, simply because that's a brand I know, and never had problems with. So I guess I'll go for that one, then.

Your Cooler Master problem is a known one. According to several comments I've read elsewhere, it's fixed if you attach a top fan (there's space for it, but it's not included). That fan only costs around $25, so it's not an issue.

@ ichihaifu

Why OCZ Vertex 4? That one costs ~40% extra. I don't mind paying that, but if I'm going to pay extra, then there must be a reason to choose that one over others. Without any good reason, I'll probably follow MMOarQQ's advice - reliability and performance are good arguments :)

I know 32 GB RAM is kinda "overkill", but I'm not going below 16. If I have to pay extra for higher speed, then that's not really an issue, the differences in price are quite low, at least here.

About the CPU:

Two votes for Intel. Interesting. I don't know much about their current processors, but I didn't like them much a few years ago. If I'm going to buy Intel, which are best? Here they tend to be much more expensive, compared to AMD, without really getting more favourable reviews. So a few more details would be appreciated :)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

AMD isn't competitive at all with Intel at the high end right now. For gaming purposes, AMD's top of the line FX-8150 might get you 2/3 or 3/4 of the performance of a Core i5-3570K, which is the standard processor for gaming. The problem is that AMD's Bulldozer architecture is basically broken, and doesn't perform well in spite of the high clock speeds.

If you really, really, really want to go with an AMD processor in a high end gaming system, then put the money in the bank and wait for AMD's Vishera processors to launch later this year. The Piledriver cores of Vishera are basically fixed Bulldozer cores. AMD's Trinity with Piledriver cores is already out, so we know that it really does fix the problem. I don't think there will be a strong case for going with Vishera over Ivy Bridge for gaming purposes, but it won't be completely stupid to do so, the way it is right now with a Zambezi 8-core processor.

A Radeon HD 7950 is a little better than a 7870, but it's not $100 worth of better for gaming purposes. The price difference is more typically about $50, and even with that smaller gap, there isn't a strong case for the 7950. Of course, the other problem that the Radeon HD 7950 has is that you can get a GeForce GTX 670 for the same price, and that's a faster card.

All of the SSDs that you list are good. You could just go with whichever one is the cheapest per GB. The Corsair and OCZ SSDs that you list are basically the same thing. The Intel one is the same thing as hardware goes, but with slightly different firmware that Intel will try to convince you is better. The Kingston one uses faster NAND flash, which improves performance (and is basically the same thing as a Corsair Force GT, Intel SSD 520, or OCZ Vertex 3, none of which you list there). The Crucial M4 is a different SSD entirely, but it's also good. You probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between any of them from real-world performance alone.

In the US, the good SSDs that tend to be cheap for the capacity are the Crucial M4 and the Mushkin Chronos (which is the same thing as the Corsair and OCZ ones that you list). But prices might be different where you live.

There's no gaming reason to get more than 8 GB of system memory. The usual standard is two 4 GB modules, typically 1600 MHz, 1.5 V, and timings around 9-9-9-24 or so.

Report this post

I also don't believe there is a single credible selling point for current generation AMD CPUs outside of their APU line. Intel all the way.

This, AMD simply cannot compete with Intel in the processor market anymore. They began to lose their way when Intel released the Core 2 Duo CPUs. Back in 2008 I gambled on AMD and built a machine around the Phenom 9950 X4 @2.6GHz but it wasnt long until the Intel CPUs left the Phenoms behind in the dust.

The new Bulldozer platform turned out to be a disapointment for AMD too. AMD CPUs do have one advantage over Intel, price. For example the quad core Ivy Bridge Intel Core i5 3550 @ 3.3GHz (3.7 with boost) costs around £160. The AMD six core Bulldozer FX-6 6100 @3.4Ghz costs only £100.

Both CPUs are roughly comparable, the i5 takes the edge in some tests and benchmarks but in every day gaming there would be almost no differance. Anyone building a machine on a tight budget would be able to do a lot with the £60 saved, it could go towards the GPU and get a better graphics card.

Report this post

A very informative post, which will help me with some of my decisions, thanks for that :)

Intel's jungle of processor families, generations, and whatever, has gotten me completely lost. I've spent an hour or so at their website now, not much smarter than before going there.

You say i5-3570k is standard for gaming? Well, that's odd, and not what Intel recommends. I've been playing around with their "help me choose" tool, and the last (4th) question is the only one about gaming. If I choose "immersive 3D games" (other options are "basic online games" and "flash, social networking, and mainstream games"), then it will ONLY recommend the i7 family, regardless of what my other picks are.

Ok, more odd stuff. Tried using their "Intel Processor Comparison" page. They have a short description of types. The i7 Extreme says it's for hardcore gaming, but that's the only type where they mention gaming at all on this page. Here, i5 is only a "smart performance with a speed boost for videos, fotos, email and internet". That doesn't sound good at all.

Bottom line is, I know little about intel's processors, but they sure doesn't make it easier for me. AMD isn't the best option, if I follow the advice in this thread, still I think I'll stick with my original choice. That is, unless someone gives me good advice about an i7 (not i5) model.

@ ichihaifu

Not sure why you recommend i5 2500. From what I can tell, it was a good choice a year ago, but now it doesn't seem to score well compared to newer models.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

The i5 is totally for gaming, I think Intel are reffering to the i7 as the gaming CPU because they are counting it as stand alone and without using a discrete graphics card. All the Core i CPUs have a built in graphics processer. The Core i5 3000s can run HD video for example, Core i7s can play some 3D games without using a GPU.

With a graphics card the Core i5s play games with silky smooth performance. In a synthetic enviroment Ivy Bridge i5s score higher in some benchmarks than entry level Sandy Bridge i7s.

Notice how in some games the Ivy Bridge i5s out perform the Sandy Bridge i7s? Also those gaming benchmarks show that the AMD FX-8150 performs worse than the intel chip in every game, sometimes by a huge amount. If gaming performance is important to you the Intel chips are the obvious choice, unless you are using the FX-8150 to save cash of course.

If you do choose to go for an Intel CPU get an Ivy Bridge, you wont save much by getting a Sandy Bridge and you will want the Ivy Bridge features.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

My friend you need to learn alot about marketing and ignoring advice of people who you ask for help off of.......................

If you walk into a place and say i want the most expensive thing you have - the sales man will not say well this cheaper model is better for you are they? They will say here is a mug with too much money i will try and shaft him with what ever i can sell him. If you go to the intel site and say whats the best i can have they will say "the i7 - it even makes the tea and washes the dishes".

Now a better question is why are you gonna buy the amd - people have told you its broken and you can buy an i5 for the same price, yet you decide to ignore them with nothing better than "Well i like amd, they dont have funny names", really?

You need to learn bigger does not mean better - why do you need 8 cores and 32gb ram? Is this going to be a server. Remember most programs are still mainly built with them using a maximum of 2-3gb.

My advice overal - listen people who know far more about PCs than you especially after you ask for their help.

And just to let you know - if you want to build a decent rig that will be used 90% for gaming with the budget you are suggesting it is a Intel i5 3750k, 8gb of 1600mhz ram (though you are quite correct prices are so cheap 16gb wouldnt hurt) and anywhere from a 7850+ on a gfxs card.

Oh and why not to bother with an 8 core system is by the time that games actually use 8 cores this machine will prob be old enough to be in a museum!

Report this post

A very informative post, which will help me with some of my decisions, thanks for that :)

Intel's jungle of processor families, generations, and whatever, has gotten me completely lost. I've spent an hour or so at their website now, not much smarter than before going there.

You say i5-3570k is standard for gaming? Well, that's odd, and not what Intel recommends. I've been playing around with their "help me choose" tool, and the last (4th) question is the only one about gaming. If I choose "immersive 3D games" (other options are "basic online games" and "flash, social networking, and mainstream games"), then it will ONLY recommend the i7 family, regardless of what my other picks are.

Ok, more odd stuff. Tried using their "Intel Processor Comparison" page. They have a short description of types. The i7 Extreme says it's for hardcore gaming, but that's the only type where they mention gaming at all on this page. Here, i5 is only a "smart performance with a speed boost for videos, fotos, email and internet". That doesn't sound good at all.

Bottom line is, I know little about intel's processors, but they sure doesn't make it easier for me. AMD isn't the best option, if I follow the advice in this thread, still I think I'll stick with my original choice. That is, unless someone gives me good advice about an i7 (not i5) model.

@ ichihaifu

Not sure why you recommend i5 2500. From what I can tell, it was a good choice a year ago, but now it doesn't seem to score well compared to newer models.

A Core i5-3570K and Core i7-3770K are two different bins of the same processor, so it's the same underlying processor die. For a Core i5, Intel automatically disables some stuff that they would leave enabled on a Core i7. (The Core i7 disables some stuff, too, such as ECC memory support.) Basically, there are four differences between a Core i5-3570K and a Core i7-3770K:

1) The 3770K has 8 MB of L3 cache, while the 3570K has 6 MB. The impact of this is very slight, and I'd expect it to usually be under 1%.

2) The 3770K has hyperthreading, while the 3570K does not. In programs that would scale flawlessly to eight cores, hyperthreading can increase performance by up to 30%. In programs that can't put more than four cores to good use, Windows will ignore hyperthreading, so it won't matter. If a program is meaningfully processor limited on a modern quad core processor (say, an FX-4100 that is much slower than what you're considering), it's pretty much invariably because it isn't able to put enough processor cores to good use. Hyperthreading is irrelevant for gaming.

3) The 3770K has a stock clock speed 100 MHz higher than the 3570K. Both have an unlocked multiplier, however, so they'll let you set the clock speed to whatever you want. If you like the 3770K stock clock speed better than the 3570K stock clock speed, then you can build a computer, open the BIOS, increase the CPU multiplier by 1, and then you'll have a 3570K running at 3770K speeds.

4) The 3770K costs about $100 more ($110 more based on current New Egg prices).

For a gaming machine, the only difference that matters is #4, and it's the reason to go with a Core i5-3570K rather than a Core i7-3770K.

So why the Intel recommendations of a Core i7 for gaming? It's likely just routine marketing lies. (Yes, you need the more expensive product! Don't ask what you're paying extra for.) It's also plausible that whoever made that page isn't terribly familiar with gaming and doesn't realize that games are having trouble putting even four processor cores to good use.

Report this post

Not sure why you recommend i5 2500. From what I can tell, it was a good choice a year ago, but now it doesn't seem to score well compared to newer models.

If you look around on forums like this one, you'll find quite a few posts giving advice to the effect of "I bought this three years ago, and I'm happy with it, and I'm not aware of anything that has released in the last three years." Though for the Core i5-2500K, you only have to go back about a month and a half for it to be the standard processor, as Ivy Bridge launched fairly recently. Incidentally, a Core i5-3570K is about 10% faster at stock speeds than a Core i5-2500K, but the latter overclocks further, so if you overclock both as far as they can go, they're roughly tied.

Of course, if the goal is extreme overclocking and big numbers of GHz, then the FX-8150 fares quite well. Get an Intel processor too cold (the easiest way to do this is liquid nitrogen) and it doesn't function properly. But you can take a recent AMD processor as cold as you possibly can (e.g., with liquid helium that is a few degrees above absolute zero) and it still works. You can get higher clock speeds at lower temperatures, so the overclocking records are all AMD. That's not high performance, however; that's only high numbers of GHz. And extreme overclocking like that isn't practical for everyday use. But this is wandering way off topic.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Netspook

Why OCZ Vertex 4? That one costs ~40% extra. I don't mind paying that, but if I'm going to pay extra, then there must be a reason to choose that one over others. Without any good reason, I'll probably follow MMOarQQ's advice - reliability and performance are good arguments :)

Because vertex 4 has new Everest 2 chip, which is BIG compared to the stantard Sandforce, not it size but in usage speed.

Everest 2 tradeoff over Sandforce is that it has lower write speeds but you wont really se able to tell.

Also going back to the RAM, do you know why you dont need that much ram? Well rather do you know what ram is there for?

RAM is there for active programs to store and use data so that it doesnt need to be written to HDD/SSD every single time something performs an operation. Generally you only need large amounts of RAM for virtualization in server environments or if you happen to emulate something big in your PC(emulating ISO files is a good example, when you mount up an .ISO image, the data is stored to RAM and it is used from there).

- Thus you dont need that much and most likely you'll never use as much as 32gb of RAM at any given time, unless you intentionally do that. 16gb is a bit much too, but if you ABSOLUTELY MUST have extra for future and want to spend extra buck on it, then ok. But anything more than 16gb is seriously overkill.

Report this post

You both seems to know a lot about this, and you have me convinced. I'll go for the i5, then.

One last question:

Here in Norway, the most expensive gaming rigs are usually delivered with Win 7 Utlimate, while cheaper models have Home Premium. I don't see much reason to pay $110 extra for Ultimate for a rig I'll mostly use to play games, watch movies, and internet. Am I correct, or is there something I am missing here?

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I am not into software so much, I cannot help much there in all honesty. Windows 7 ultimate has some extra networking features and bitlocker and it can run programs in XP mode. Most of its features are enterprise based iirc. If you want or need drive encryption then you have to go with ultimate. Full drive encryption can reduce performance in gaming machines I think, someone more into software can probably help more. Personally I would not bother with Windows 7 ultimate, I would spend the $110 elsewhere in the build. That would cover the extra $100 the HD 7950 costs over the 7870, or a bigger SSD or a fancier case :)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Netspook

Here in Norway, the most expensive gaming rigs are usually delivered with Win 7 Utlimate, while cheaper models have Home Premium. I don't see much reason to pay $110 extra for Ultimate for a rig I'll mostly use to play games, watch movies, and internet. Am I correct, or is there something I am missing here?

You're correct. Prebuilt computers typically are configured with whatever clueless customers can be convinced to overpay for, more so than what makes sense at a given price tag.

Nearly all home users should get Home Premium, which includes everything that Microsoft things more than a tiny handful of home users will need. The Professional edition is targeted at businesses, with some added features that would be very useful in a business environment with dozens of computers on a network, but basically useless to home users. The Ultimate edition seems to exist (as opposed to folding the few Ultimate-only features into the Professional edition) mainly so that people inclined to buy the best of everything have a way to give Microsoft extra money while they're at it.

Also, whenever I see someone post specs of a system with not that good of hardware but Windows 7 Ultimate, I think, "I bet that's pirated".

Tom's puts the 7870 in the $350 range, and the 7970 in the $450 range. At the end of the article above is a hierarchy chart that can give you an idea of where certain hardware types rank, and what could be a nice step up for only a few dollars here or there.

Another point to consider, for the same $350-$450 could you instead go with a step down and run 2 cards in SLI/Crossfire giving you the same or possibly better overall performance? My personal mantra is to NEVER buy a video card for over $250 as within a few months the same card has drastically dropped in price and newer hardware has taken it's place. So you are better off spending that money in other areas that don't have the same rapid rate of decline, but that's just my opinion.

Lucky for you, Tom's also does a Best SSD for the money, here is the link to May 2012:

Report this post

You both seems to know a lot about this, and you have me convinced. I'll go for the i5, then.

One last question:

Here in Norway, the most expensive gaming rigs are usually delivered with Win 7 Utlimate, while cheaper models have Home Premium. I don't see much reason to pay $110 extra for Ultimate for a rig I'll mostly use to play games, watch movies, and internet. Am I correct, or is there something I am missing here?

Home premium only supports up to 8gb of ram. So if you are going to use 16gb you would want professional.

Thats the percentage of returned faulty drives, I know it's six months old but I think it's still fairly relevant. It also doesn't list Samsung drives, but from what i heard the Samsung 830 is very good.

My choice would probably be the Crucial M4.

When it comes to CPUs listen to what has been said here and check out some reviews, the higher i5 are excellent for gaming. The biggest difference between the i5 and the i7 is that the i7 have Hyper Threading, meaning it can handle 2 threads per core simultaniously, and thats mostly useless for gaming, when it already has 4 cores.